Military Review English Edition January-February 2014 | Page 58

Pajino states “AFRICOM will be the legacy of
Bush’s failed foreign policy that threatens future
generations of the continents.”39 Ikechukwa Eze
states, “Apprehension exists about the extent
to which AFRICOM may violate rules of sovereignty and its attempt to replace the African
Union.”40 These observations raise concerns about
sovereignty, Africa’s welfare, the role of private
military contractors, U.S. military administered
development assistance, and U.S.-controlled African resources at the expense of ordinary Africans,
especially in the face of China’s presence in Africa
for energy sources. America’s Africa Command,
in conceptual terms and actual implementation,
is not intended to serve Africa’s best interests. It
just happens that Africa has grown in geopolitical
and geo-economic importance to America and her
allies. Africa has been there all along, but the United
States with the notable exception of the Cold War
era, always had a hands-off policy toward Africa.
Severine Rugumamu, Professor of Development
Studies at the University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, understandably observes that “a consistent
axiom guiding U.S. foreign policy toward Africa
is permanency of interests and not friends or enemies,”41 implying shifts in engagements in Africa
in accordance with shifts in its strategic interests.42
U.S. military covert operations with strategic
allies have adversely affected U.S. credibility and
reputation on the continent. The U.S. military,
Ugandan, and Rwandan forces covertly invaded
Zaire (now Congo) in 2007. On 5 September 2007,
U.S. covert military forces, Ugandan troops, and
rebels aligned with chief rebel Jean-Pierre Bemba
and occupied Congo’s oil- and gold-rich Semliki
Basin.43
U.S. military involvement indirectly correlates
with the protractedness and structural linkages of
the conflicts in the region, creating an environment of insecurity and instability prone to terrorist
recruitment and crimes such as piracy and money
laundering that are detrimental to America’s geostrategic intere sts on the continent. Countries militarily allied to the United States are involved in the
Congolese and Sudanese/Darfur conflicts. Rwandan
and Ugandan troops invaded Congo in 1998 and
triggered ongoing cross-border fighting that persists
to this day. Rwanda and Uganda are both U.S. and
British military client states. Uganda military forces
56

occupied the Congo oil- and mineral-rich towns
of eastern Congo. It internally fights the Lord’s
Resistant Army rebels, and has been accused of
“genocide” against the Acholi people. Rwanda is
fighting in eastern Congo, meddling in Burundi, and
has some 2,000 forces in Darfur. Ethiopia is at war
with Somalia and poised to reinvade Eritrea. Ethiopia, Uganda, and Chad are the “frontline” states
militarily disturbing Sudan. Sudan in turn backs
guerrilla armies in Uganda, Chad, and Congo. U.S.
support for factions and shifting loyalties with parties in the Darfur and Sudan conflicts have affected
Sudan’s insecurity and instability.
The United States seems to replicate the Cold
War strategic mistakes with high risks of getting
deeply into African conflicts, supporting repressive
regimes, excusing human rights abuses, diverting
scarce budget resources, building resentment, and
undermining long-term U.S. interests in Africa.44
Oxfam and other charitable groups signed a
report called “Nowhere to Turn” that was very critical of the militarization of aid because it puts civilians at greater risk.45 Elsewhere, in Afghanistan,
the Taliban targets schools and hospitals erected
by the U.S. Army or associated private contractors,
but those erected by civilian or nongovernmental
organizations are rarely harassed.46
Counterinsurgency analyst David Kilcullen has
warned that heavy-handed military action, such as
air strikes that kill civilians and collaboration with
counterinsurgency efforts by incumbent regimes,
far from diminishing the threat of terrorism, helps it
grow.47 Undoubtedly, we witness increasing terrorism in Africa despite U.S. military presence. These
conditions of insecurity and instability threaten
America’s geo-strategic interests in Africa, demanding strategic change in its dealings with Africa.

Policy Implications—Demand for
Soft Power
Defense secretary Gates stresses civilian aspects
of U.S. engagement and recommends that the
State Department lead U.S. engagement with other
countries. He argues, “We cannot kill or capture
our way to victory” in the long-term campaign
against terrorism,” suggesting increased civilian
efforts.48 Despite its lofty agenda, AFRICOM’s
stratagem excluded state capacity building and
socio-economic development of the impoverished
January-February 2014 MILITARY REVIEW